Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06091987 - S.8 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on June 9 , 1987 by the following vote: AYES; Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak NOES; None ABSENT; Supervisor Powers ABSTAIN; None ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT; Recycling Programs Supervisor Nancy Fanden advised that she had received the attached letters from Everett Jenkins, Solid Waste Commission, and David I. Tam, San Francisco Bay Chapter-Sierra Club, relating to recycling programs. Supervisor Fanden also transmitted to the Board the attached Port Costa Newsletter, which contains information relating to Port Costa' s volunteer recycling program. As recommended by Supervisor Fanden, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the attached letters and newsletter are REFERRED to the Recycling Committee for review. CC: Supervisor Fanden Supervisor Torlakson Community Development Director County Administrator 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: ,i+eL 9 /#I,/ PXIL B HELOR, Cleric of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator (� 4 BY . Deputy May 21 , 1987 TO: THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: EVERETT JENKINS PUBLIC MEMBER SOLID WASTE COMMISSION SUBJECT: RECYCLING PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION Pursuant to the request of Supervisor Nancy Fanden, the following is a revised version of a memorandum which was recently presented to the Solid Waste Commission regarding recycling program elements which could be acted upon immediately. I hereby present it to you for your consideration; RECYCLING AND WASTE REDUCTION A. I suggest that given the interest being generated about recycling that a model resolution be drafted and presented to the each franchisor acknowledging that a solid waste disposal crisis exists and expressing support for recycling and waste reduction programs. I suggest that such a model resolution be drafted by County staff and sent to each city for adoption during the same time that the County Solid Waste Plan revision is being considered. B. I also suggest that a model ordinance be drafted and presented to each franchisor within two weeks after the adoption of the above-referenced resolution. The ordinance should include the following: ( 1 ) Authorizing a 50 cent increase in the collection rates effective July 1 , 1987 to fund a recycling program (the funds raised by this increase will be set aside in a separate account which can only be drawn upon with the authorization of the franchisor) ; ( 2) Requiring each franchisee (garbage collection company) to develop a recycling program by January 1 , 1988 for implementation; Page 2 ( 3 ) Requiring the departments of each public agency to locate supplies of and, wherever feasible, purchase recycled paper products and other acceptable recycled goods and to implement an in- house recycling and waste reduction program by September 1 , 1987 ; ( 4 ) Requiring that each recycling program be reviewed by the County Solid Waste Commission; (5 ) Requiring that each new development incorporate a solid waste production and disposal component in its planning element; and (6 ) Creating a solid waste committee within each franchisor's jurisdiction. Said committee should be composed of representatives from the local franchisee, the environmental community, the local business community, local supermarket chains, and the local school district. B. In addition to the above, I further suggest that the County consider the following: ( 1 ) Holding recycling and waste reduction workshops in each franchising jurisdiction; ( 2 ) Sponsoring a county-wide Garbage Awareness Day; ( 3) Initiating a Consumer/Shopper Awareness Program; (4 ) Initiating a Business Waste Reduction Incentive (Appreciation Award) Program; and ( 5 ) Contacting each industry and public agency in the County to encourage them to develop in-house waste reduction and recycling programs and to purchase recycled products whenever and wherever feasible. Page 3 C. Finally, I strongly suggest that discussions with the school districts be immediately begun regarding the development of programs in the current school curricula dealing with solid waste and environmental issues. This could be a key element in the educational program developed by the County. In conjunction with said discussions, the schools themselves should be encouraged to develop in-house waste reduction and recycling programs and to purchase recycled products whenever and wherever feasible. Obviously, the foregoing is rather sketchy with regards to details and may prompt a number of questions to be raised. While not professing to know all the answers, I am available to provide more background information should the Board so desire. Otherwise, I do hope that the Board will seriously consider the above and act upon the merits of each item as the Board may deem appropriate. Everett Jenk s Public Member Solid Waste Commission EJ: recycling.plan .. .. -y� � IIs-,Ir.... �� � I � ✓ .. SAN FRANCISCO BAY CHAPTER• SIERRA CLUB ALAMEDA•CONTRA COSTA•MARIN r SAN FRANCISCO 6014 COLLEGE AVENUE, OAKLAND, CA 94618 BOOKSTORE: (415) 658-7470 OFFICE: (415) 653-6127 CONSERVATION: (415) 653-6127 26 May 1987 Honorable Avon Wilson, Chair Contra Costa County Solid Waste Commission c/o Community Development Department PO Box 951 Martinez CA 94553 Solid Waste Plan Comments Dear Ms. Wilson: Thank you for affording us the opportunity to comment on the draft revisions to the 1982 Contra Costa County Solid Waste Management Plan. We recognize that the dual-level nature of solid waste planning -- cities must provide for collection, counties must plan for disposal --makes focus on a clearly- envisioned set of strategies difficult. , While we concur that a major plan goal should be the selection of new landfill(s) , we also believe the Plan should give strong preference to a comprehensive waste reduction, recycling, and composting strategy, particularly in the following sections: . GOALS AND OBJECTIVES (Part I, page 2) The statement in the draft plan reflects preoccupation with the County's present disposal crisis (symptom) , rather than focussing on the failure of a prior Commission to plan for rapidly-growing waste volumes (cause) or implement comprehensive recycling, com- posting and waste reduction programs (the most cost-effective solutions) . We suggest the Following revision of the goal stated in the fourth paragraph of this section: AMEND After the siting of new landfills have been sited,- the eaumty The cities and sanitary districts which franchise garbage collection should immed ati ely requiretarn tts energ es toward waste reduc- tion,_ and reseuree reesvery recyc. ling and com ostin programs re- ducing the amount of waste going to the landfill by 30% 1?y 1989, to make the County's three landfills last as long as possible and to make use of reusable reseurees materials. A wide variety of waste reduction rec clip and composting reseuree reeevery if-forts-is encouraged by th s Plan. COMMENT: We believe that the cities and sanitary districts responsible under state law for collection of solid waste (which 1 vate firms) have it within their powers to bring about most of the changes necessary to avoid another landfill crisis similar to what Contra Costa County has undergone since the 1985 Corps of Engineers' de-cision that Acme Landfill must be closed. Specifi- cally, the cities -and sanitary districts should adopt recycling goals and require their collectors to divert very large volumes of materials from the waste stream. Some Western American cities with strong recycling goals and evident commitment to their achievement are: Portland, Oregon 52% Seattle, Washington 50% Berkeley, California 50% San Jose, California 36% San Francisco, CA 35% E1 Cerrito, California 25%. Marin County has set a 47% recycling goal, and New Jersey has just enacted a 25% recycling goal within two years for each of its 567 cities. At least one California city, Davis, already recycles about 35% of its total waste stream. E1 Cerrito recy- cles nearly 20%, as do Palo Alto, many of the cities in Marin County, and (probably) San Francisco. A few cities in Germany and Japan are reliably reported to be recycling between 50 and 80% of their total wastes. There is every reason to believe that each city in Contra Costa County, were it subject to the mandatory recycling laws now in effect in the states of Oregon, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, could implement within two years a comprehensive recycling pro- gram diverting at least 30% of its total waste stream from land- fill. The Solid Waste Commission should recommend such a goal as part of this Plan. The Board of Supervisors should approve such a goal because it would significantly extend (by about one year) the lives of the three existing landfills in the County. The cities and sanitary districts should approve a 30% recycling goal because its attainment would be a major means of stabilizing residential and commercial garbage collection rates, and helping meet long-term national goals of resource conservation and self- reliannce. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES ADMINISTRATION Countywide Planning Considerations (Part I, page 3) ADD: The county should pre-zone patented landfill sites and place these sites in the General Plan. Waste Reporting Part I a e 5) ADD: Landfill operators shall also be required to submit as part 2 of their periodic reports statistically-valid estimates of ton- nages collected from each city or unincorporated area for the following material categories: Mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, newsprint, wood, food waste, garden waste, ferrous metals, non- ferrous metals, glass, plastics, other organics, and other inor- ganics. Base-year planning information employing the same type, community, and material categories shall be developed from waste composition studies administered by the County and paid for by garbage collection rates. Composition studies and waste reports shall be public documents. ENFORCEMENT Enforcement Program (Part I, page 6) ADD: The program shall include periodic mechanical and safety inspections of collection, transfer, and disposal equipment to ensure that all facets of this Plan can reliably be implemented. If goals are not met, County and cities shall take all necessary steps, including incentive collection rates or bonus programs. COLLECTION AND TRANSFER Mandatory Collection/Subscription (Part I, page 6) ADD: Upon a satisfactory showing to a franchising jurisdiction that all generated wastes are composted, recycled, or reused, any household, business, or institution shall be granted an exemption from this requirement; any verification costs shall be recover- able from the County Department of Health Services, which shall modify the dump fees for its enforcement program if necessary. Transfer Stations (Part I, page 7, 4th paragraph ("The following. . . ] ) ADD: The siting of at least three transfer stations is necessary to achieve maximum flexibility in achieving volume reduction+ goals. LANDFILL DISPOSAL ADD: Composting (Part I, page 9) All existing and new landfills shall implement on-site composting of vegetative matter to ensure adequate topsoil for daily cover 'r and eventual closure requirements. Any surplus can be stockpiled for other uses or sold. ADD: WASTE REDUCTION (Before Resource Recovery, Part I, page 10) COMMENT: Even though this is identified as a basic goal of the Plan (Part I, page 2) , there is no section containing any discus- sion (except for one brief paragraph in Part II, page 7-1) . It 3 has been clearly established in California law that local govern- ments can regulate wasteful uses by the enactment of waste reduc- tion ordinances; $ national waste reduction strategy has been estimated capable of' a 10% effect on the waste stream. Hence, the' Plan at a minimum should discuss voluntary actions that could be encouraged by public education efforts, as well as prohibition of environmentally harmful packaging materials such as styrofoam carry-out food containers produced from chlorofluorocarbons. RESOURCE RECOVERY Recycling Goals (Part I, page 10) COMMENT: We think it is appropriate for the Commission, through its Technical Advisory Committee, to develop "realistic" goals, but what is being done within the County is perhaps less relevant than what can be replicated that is being done by other cities, counties, and states. We believe the Commission could immediate- ly benefit from inspection tours to programs in Davis, Santa Rosa, Marin County, Berkeley, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, and San Jose, all reasonably accessible in an afternoon. The only -"realistic" limit on recycling in Contra Costa County has been the willing- ness of franchising jurisdictions to require collectors to devel- op cost-effective recycling programs anal to ensure that they are fairly compensated by adjustments to refuse collection fees. Recycling Implementation (Part I, page 10) COMMENT: A report from each city within one year outlining current and future composting is a very modest commitment to what we believe is by far the most cost-effective resource recovery/landfill conservation strategy. New Jersey is requiring each of its 567 cities to select within six months three materi- als to recycle (in addition to plant debris, to be composted) ; to reduce the waste stream 15% within one year by recycling and com- posting; and to reduce it by 25% within two years. Cities in Contra Costa County if anything enjoy better recycling markets than those in New Jersey, and their landfill shortage is quite pressing. Implementation of recycling for four locally-selected materials, plus composting of plant debris, should be sufficient to attain a 30% recycling goal by 1989. Curbside Recycling (Part I, page 11) COMMENT: Curbside recycling is not the "most effective in terms of volume diverted from the wastestream;" composting of vegetative matter has a higher volume-reduction effect. But curbside recycling is the most cost-effective means of collecting municipal waste, because of lower truck and labor costs and offsetting revenues from sale of materials. Accordingly, we cannot conceive of any city with garbage collection service for which curbside recycling would not be appropriate. The observa- 4 tions regarding other solid waste system savings resulting from curbside recycling are extremely well-taken. Vegetative Waste Resource Recovery (Part I, page 11) ADD: Composting should be implemented immediately at existing landfills to provide topsoil for closure, for daily cover, or to stockpile for marketing. Vegetative wastes may exceed 20% by weight (and considerably more by volume) of all materials now being landfilled in Contra Costa County. Therefore, separate pickup and processing at landfills of vegetative matter for com- posting as a means of extending the County's short-term landfill capacity should be a requirement with a very high priority. Waste-to-Energy (Part I, page 12) COMMENT: The proposed West County Waste-to-Energy Project should be sized, not "to use wastes from West Contra Costa County now going to the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill," but to use wastes from western Contra Costa County remaining after planning and implementation of comprehensive recycling and composting programs recovering a high percentage of the total waste stream. That percentage should be at least the 30% goal by 1989 we have recommended above, and probably much higher. The Plan should take note of the 1991 recycling goals of Marin County (47%) and Berkeley (50%) , and the substantial commitments of local funds already made toward implementing those goals, for two purposes: as a benchmark for what is achievable with recycling and compost- ing, and as a gauge of the likelihood of nearby jurisdictions joining the Waste-to-Energy Project. The Plan should also note that waste-to-energy projects for San Francisco/San Mateo County (Redwood City) , southern Alameda County (Fremont) , and Los An- geles County (Irwindale) were decisively rejected by local offi- cials in April 1987 for reasons including a desire to implement greatly-expanded recycling and composting first. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (Part I, pages 14b-15) Tasks 2, 9, 10, 13 and 14 should be modified per above comments. PART II BACKGROUND INFORMATION CHAPTER I PURPOSE OF A PLAN COMMENT: A plan should be a vision of the most desirable goals, and the programmatic steps necessary -- however unconventional -- to get there, rather than simply documentation of current plans to move toward conventional goals. While it is "necessary to analyze the existing solid waste system . . . (to minimize] the risk of transferring the problems without solving them, " that procedure incurs the risk of ignoring more ambitious goals and 5 attainable solutions that have been developed outside Contra Costa County, and largely without encouragement from the California waste management "establishment." CHAPTER 7 RESOURCE RECOVERY COMMENT: This chapter is thorough and exhibits a sophisticated grasp of technical material. The sections on recycling and com- posting have an admirable level of detail, far more than is found in most County Solid Waste Plans prepared in California. However, the chapter doesn't provide enough of a decision-making framework to facilitate strategic choices between different tech- niques. It draws upon a recycling study which was limited in scope to form unduly-pessimistic conclusions about the effect of recycling programs on the county's disposal needs. The excellent section on avoided cost of recycling (pages 7-10 through 7-12) shows how such a cost would be calculated, but avoids calculating what that figure is for Contra Costa County (we believe it to be at least $65 per ton recycled) or what such a figure would mean in relation to a current overall collection, haul and disposal cost of $73 per ton (page 7-1) . The implication that compre- hensive recycling (with a net cost of $10 - $15/ton) could be an important means of stabilizing solid waste costs should be made explicit in the Plan. The section accepts at face-value the vague but dubious Conten- tion (page 7-15) that "It is likely that waste-to-energy will be economically viable in the future. " No public-choice model is described which, would lead to such a judgment with respect to waste-to-energy projects. This averts discussion of a serious potential revenue shortfall if the Public Utilities Commission refuses to approve energy sales contracts for electricity at rates in excess of electricity from conventional sources, as well as of major disposal cost increases if toxic handling of incin- erator ash is required by the Environmental Protection Agency (a very real possibility, according to a recent report by the Envir- onmental Defense Fund) . A preliminary calculation for a 1-mil- lion ton-per-year project proposed for the West Bay shows total public costs for waste-to-energy betweeen two and three times those of sanitary landfills. For Contra Costa, that would mean waste-to-energy costs (tipping fees if unsubsidized by PG&E con- tracts or tax benefits, plus toxic ash costs) of $40 - $60/ton, as compared to $18 - $20 per ton for landfills without transfer stations within the County. The crux of the Plan should be at least a tentative choice of strategy. A cost comparison of three different scenarios is sug- gestive of Contra Costa's most appropriate strategy. Scenario (a) 6 (essentially, the draft plan) calls for 10% recycling/80% waste- to-energy/10% landfill. Scenario (b) calls for '30% recycling & composting (Sierra Club goal for 1989) , 60% subject to waste-to- energy - (not a Sierra Clubgoal) , and 10% landfilled. Scenario . (c) posits 50% recycling & composting/50% landfill. Assuming a net cost of $15/ton for recycling & composting, $20/ton for landfill, and $40/ton for waste-to-energy, and 1000 tons of waste, scenario (a) costs $35,500, (b) costs $30,500, and (c) costs about one-half of (a) , $17,500. At $60/ton to burn, (a) is $51,500, (b) is $42,500; (c) is now one-third (a) . Burn least, recycle and cpmpost most, spend least. Respectfully, $Q4 rct O'er7040. - DAVID I. TAM, Solid Waste Chair (652-8063) 7 Port -Costa N June 1987 TOWN COUNCIL SHORELINE PARK UPDATE MEETING East Bay Regional Park District has received The next Port Costa Town Council general meeting $1 million from the Coastal Conservancy for acquisi- will be held at the Port Costa School on Tuesday,June tion of 75 acres at Eckley,and an additional 9, 1987,at 7:30 p.m.An agenda will be posted prior $100,000 has been set aside by EBRPD for abicycle to the meeting.You will find more information on the trail from Port Costa to Martinez. important matters to be discussed in this newsletter. Of local interest.•In the California state election in All Port Costa residents are welcome! June of 1988,a park bond issue,if passed,will provide$3 million for further acquisition of Carquinez PORT COSTA WATER shoreline property. Port Costa voters are urged to The future of Port Costa's water supply is in question. vote in favor of this important measure to preserve At issue is whether Port Costa will be supplied with our scenic resources. water from East Bay MUD or the Contra Costa Water District—and at what cost?You are urged to attend TREES the next Port Costa Tbwn Council meeting(see above) With the cooperation of the California Division of for a report on this subject.Representatives from Forestry,the Port Costa Tree Fund and EBMUD,CCWD,East Bay Regional Park District, many local volunteers,over 75 trees Contra Costa County Supervisor Nancy Faliden's �. " have been planted in Port Costa over office and Port Costa Materials,Inc.will attend. , -" y the last two years. In the most recent project,three dozen Australian pine LOCAL FIRE PROTECTION trees were planted on the shoreline The Port Costa Volunteer Fire Department needs side of the Port Costa sewer plant.Vol- help.There are not enough trained volunteers in unteers maintain the trees with a reg- Port Costa to adequately man the fire truck in the ular biweekly watering schedule.Also, event of a fire,and at present,the department has no work continues on the control of elm beetles through personnel qualified to provide emergency medical spraying and selective pruning in an effort to protect assistance. the town's elm trees from disease. Port Costa residents 18 years of age and older are eligible to become volunteer firemen. Residents RECYCLING between 16 and 18 years old are eligible for the Since the beginning of Port Costa's volunteer recy- Junior Firefighters Program.Port Costa men or cling program five years ago,over 200 tons of mate- women interested in becoming volunteer firemen are rial from the town's homes and businesses have been urged to attend any Tuesday evening class at the recycled.Without recycling,this material—glass, Crockett fire station, 746 Loring Avenue,at 6:30 newspaper,cardboard,mixed paper,aluminum and p.m.For information,call Crockett Fire Chief Jerry tin—would have been disgorged on Contra Costa Littleton at 787-2717. County's already overtaxed"landfill"dump sites. Money from the sale of recyclable materials,an NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH amount in excess of$1,000 per year,is donated to the In accordance with a previous Tbwn Council decision, Port Costa Tree Fund. (See insert for recycling dates "Neighborhood Watch"signs will soon be posted in and information.) Port Costa at locations on Canyon Lake Drive and ,,,•� Reservoir Street.All work will be in accordance with i • -f• , . the requirements of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department. Printed on 100%recycled paper.Cost of publishing this newsletter paid for by Port costa Tree Hind.Postage paid for by the Port Costa Town Council. Free Recycling Service for Port Costa Coen.letter to all residents of Fort Costa: if you would'tike to recycle; Port Costa Recycles would like to help. .What.is recycling? Recycling is using things over again instead of throwing them away. Recycling of such ordinary household items -as glass, tin, aluminum, newspaper and even "junk mail"saves energy, helps to conserve natural resources,reduces litter, and could even help you save money on your garbage bill. Any questions will be gladly answered Call 787.2579 or 787-2254. Or, write Port Costa Recycles, P.O. Box 35, Port Costa, CA 94569., o How to Prepare Your Material for Pickup Glass bottles and)ars: Rinse well, remove caps and neck rings.Colors may be mixed and labels left on. Tin cans: 15hould be cleaned, both ends removed and flattened. Aluminum: All kinds accepted, from cans to N trays and aluminum scrap metal(that old lawn chair you've been meaning to take to the dump.) Newspaper. Place in a cardboard box, shopping bag, or tie.with string. The Boy Scouts also provide newspaper'pickup service.i Cardboard: Brown boxes of corrugated type.Please flatten. White office paper and computer paper. Bundle separately from newspaper. -Magazines, phone books and odd assortment of paper material sometimes known as "junk mail"— please separate from newspaper. Motor oil: Pour your used oil into a container and we will return the container to you.